Matrix Games Forums

Hi, What about a small scale (large by Japanese standards) pre-emptive invasion of Darwin to prevent it's been used as submarine/long range bomber base? I think it would require a large commitment by the Japanese (2-3 divisions) It would not be aimed at forcing Australia out of the war only to deny the use of a base for as long as possible. (Part of the plan includes removing the troops rather then allowing them to be destroyed)

It has the benifit of also forcing the allied player to gather the resources to recapture the base preventing (delaying) their use elsewhere (Of course there is a large number of units that cannot be used outside Australia without paying the political price.)

I think this is a valid (prehaps not actually possible but I'm looking at it carefully)
Operation for Japan to undertake. Darwin can become a major threat to the Japanese resource gathering operation if left unchecked. At the very least the Japanese will need to commit a large number of airgroups to defend lower SRA if Darwin remains in Allied hands.

There are two other bases in supporting range of Darwin. So if the allies place air units in range they can make any landing very difficult if not impossible. But this also has a good side for the Japanese . These units can not be employed elsewhere if tied to defense of Darwin.

Don't you think the Japanese player should be rewarded and the allied player penalized in some way for this?

They are by virtue of the fact that resources that could be used to push them back in the SRA now have to be used in Oz to shore it up. Sneaking some troops into Derby lands you a size 5 airfield and a size 4 port. This is quick enough to unload troops and supplies fairly quickly and lets you put 150 torpedo bombers and 100 escort to make them kill ships that would be kicking your teeth in in the SRA without this threat. One also needs to note that most of Oz is high speed rail connections, so troop movement once ashore is quite quick. Once troops are ashore, they are no longer threatened by the massive CD units and can move overland to eliminate the threats. This is not a place you want to get caught with your plants down.

It is only 70 hexes round trip from Singapore to Derby which is withing range of small DD's with only 3000 endurance. 70 hexes round trip = 35 hexes one way, high speed DD's move at 6-7 hexes per round. You get the idea how quickly it can actually be done by a Fast Transport fleet of 20 DD's. Now for the real shocker aspect of this. It is 70 hexes one way from Sydney to Derby so even assuming early detection, guess who will be there first!

A landing in Oz is not out of the picture nor should any player magically assume they are safe. It is actually closer to Derby then Noumea and a much safer path with less airbases that could hurt you.

While folks want to discuss the political implications, that fine. I don't care about them as I am the commander in chief of the military and don't have to answer to anyone of higher authority in the game. Effectively, the game makes you the supreme commander, there is no one who is going to fire you

Sounds like a good strategic objective for the reasons given. I don't think it should have any "magic bullete Australia surrenders" effect however. There are of course any number of other bases from which US subs can operate. The long-range US subs can operate from Hawaii or could be transferred to Colombo. In Autralia there's still Perth and Freemantle.. both major sub bases.

But sure, taking key ports to deny the Allies forward bases for subs sounds like a reasonable idea. Certainly it'd require much less effort and much less support than a wholesalf effort at overrunning Australia.

pad152 wrote:The Japanese player takes one of the northern cities of Oz. You know the Japanese can't completely take over the land of Oz, so you completely ignore this invasion!

Don't you think the Japanese player should be rewarded and the allied player penalized in some way for this?

He should be punished for squandering valuable and limited resources siezing
meaningless objectives. Now if he was to sieze a position which he could
support and build into a base to bomb Australian War Industries, he should
be rewarded with damage to those industries' production. And the Aussies
would certainly see the threat and try to do something about it. But a
landing that displaces a few aboriginies and lets you wave your flag over
some worthless dirt---what does that accomplish? Taking Darwin would be
an impediment to Allied operations in the area, and a bulwark for guarding
the East Indies. Worthwhile accomplishments---but taking Darwin doesn't
cause Australian Surrender any more than taking Dutch Harbor would drive
America from the war. You're looking for "magic bullets", and their aren't any.

Hi, I don't think any allied country will surrender as long as it has units in the field. I'm not looking for the means of forcing allied surrender.
Taking Darwin is on my list of things to study. Perth and Freemantle are a further 50 hexes distant from the SRA (3k miles) Midway and Pearl Harbor are not good locations for submarines operating in the SRA (These boats will sit on the routes to Home Islands and around Home Island Ports)

I think adding 6k miles to distance (3k each way) is a postive thing for Japan.
It shortens the on station time, increases the chance for a damaged boat to be lost. And in general makes sub ops much more difficult for allies.

mdiehl wrote:I guess, Mike, that I'd agree with that POV alot more if there was one particular feature or small set of subfeatures that dominates the strategic choices. If every ownable hex has some kind of small, incrementally valued VP value, then there will be some hexes that are never conquered/reconquered. But the strategic decisions will allow you to decide which of these are the most important. I suppose, if it were a real concern, one could tie it to a combination of conquest VPs and "time" ... where time is a function of the amount of time that elapses before the Japanese surrender.

"One particular feature or set of sub-features that dominates strategic choices"?
OK..., if we must have victory points in a strategic game, then make them
strategic as well. What mattered MOST to the Japanese was siezing and im-
porting the resources they needed to keep their economy (and war effort)
functioning. It's what they went to war to accomplish. What mattered MOST
to the Allies was defeating Japan---and the best way to ensure that defeat
was to cripple her production of war material. Give the Japanese Victory Points
based on how much war production they are able to achieve. The Allies goal
is to keep them from ammassing enough to make their eventual victory any
more costly than it needs to be.

Who holds what island when matters only in how it effects that side's pursuit of
it's ultimate goal. The Japanese need to sieze the SRA, bring it back into production, and get the resources back to their factories in Japan to be turned
into tools of war. The Allies need to "toss a spanner" into the works as early and
as often as possible, either by denying the Japs the resources, interfering with
their transport, or blowing up the factories. Everything else is basically the
tactical application of each sides plans for achieving these goals.

"Hi, I don't think any allied country will surrender as long as it has units in the field" - Other then the French?

Hornblower,

Hornblower wrote:"Hi, I don't think any allied country will surrender as long as it has units in the field" - Other then the French?

Or the Dutch, Belgians, Danes, Norwegians, Greeks, Yugoslavs, or Poles?

Mark

OK Mike, we mostly agree. I just think the control VP need to be there because even if Japan realizes the fantasy of seizing huge resource areas, there was not a hope that they could convert these into a productive enough industrial base to overtake or even substantially blunt the American lead in production of all war assets. Without VPs it seems to me that the game designer is in a real pickle... pretend that the Japanese could have done much more with the material than they were truly capable, or just make the whole thing a losing experience for whomever plays the Japanese.

Hi, I think there are some units missing in OOB. Where do these
Belgians, Danes, Norwegians, Greeks, Yugoslavs, or Poles get deployed.

I might point out that the goverment of Norway never surrendered. The Dutch never surrendered and persons from all the above fought to the end with allied units. There were fighters in Greece, Norway and Yugoslavia from invasion to liberation.

Also EastTimor was Porteguese (wimps surrendered without a fight)
The French in New Calodonia did not quit.

No allied Nation surrendered to Axis nation after the USA entered the war. (The period covered by WITP)

mdiehl, fuel comes as a byproduct of using oil up, supplies come as a byproduct of using resources up. It is not just an issue of getting the oil and resources home to feed industry, it also feeds the ships and troops. Japan either gets it, or dies trying.

There is no alternative as without a steady influx of goods, there is no longer any ability to conduct war. Japan has a laid in stock to kick them into gear, but it will not last long. When it runs out, there had better already be alternates on the way home.

One of the issues that will come up down the road as features become set in stone and balancing starts is the tuning of Japan to ensure that it has the *right* amount of goods and the *right* amount of goods exist elsewhere to have Japan cranking out what it cranked out historically. I see this are probably the toughest aspect of the game to tune.

Tuning kill ratios pales in comparison when you think about it.

There's a difference between surrender and suing for peace or going neutral.

I'm just pointing out that under certain conditions it should be possible for Japan to knock one of the major players out of the War. Right now even if Japan captured every base in India this would have no effect on China, Britain, or Oz.

Maybe political events is not the right answer, maybe change scoring.
Scoring Japan vs. each allied country. If Japan's score is greater than X times than country A then there is a chance it will have some effect on that country or it's allies.

Jap vs. India - If Japan's score is X greater than India this effects re-enforcements and supply to China.
Jap vs. US --------
Jap vs. Britain --------
Jap vs. China ---------
Jap vs. etc ...

A simple war of attrition may get real boring after mid 1943.

Speaking of surrenders. Any Japanese Government with half a brain would
have surrendered when the Marianas fell and saved the nation from the horrors
of the last year of an obviously unwinnable war. A German Government that was
rational would have seen the inevitability of defeat with the Allied Breakout from
Normandy in the summer of 1044. Both were unfortunately controlled by self-
centered, egotistical madmen who viewed their own positions maintainence
as worth the destruction of thier nations. Both these nations were in MUCH
WORSE SHAPE than the Allies would be from the "pin-pricks" that have been
suggested in this forum as cause for various Allied powers leaving the war.

Would it help to think of all game players as "self-centered, egotistical
madmen" who aren't going to surrender as long as they have weapons in hand?
Then maybe we could stop hearing about how the "occupation of this or that
piece of dirt" was going to cause the surrender of one of the Allied Powers. It
wasn't going to happen....

Japanese commandoes night parachute or are sub inserted and capture/destroy Australian North, south, east and west coast beer refineries = Australian Government sacked, Australian people give up the war, and even give up on Cricket so England can win the Ashes.

Mike Scholl wrote:Speaking of surrenders. Any Japanese Government with half a brain would
have surrendered when the Marianas fell and saved the nation from the horrors
of the last year of an obviously unwinnable war. A German Government that was
rational would have seen the inevitability of defeat with the Allied Breakout from
Normandy in the summer of 1044.

Germany might have considered surrender if they could have just surrendered to the Americans and not the Soviets but it was an all or nothing. Also, the Japanese attempted to broach the subject of peace with the Americans by going through the Soviets but the Soviets never mentioned it to the Americans because they wanted to get into the war and take Japanese land. Incidently, Russia still occupies that land to this day. Ba$tards.

I can think of a way for Japan to "win". On December 7th, the Japanese
Envoys show up at the White House and announce, "You are absolutely right,
Mr Roosevelt. We've been acting like swine. If you will restore normal relations
and trade, we will evacuate Indo-China, and make peace with the Chinese,
giving back all we"ve conquered from them since the outbreak of this fighting.
But we need trade, and contracts to support our economy and workforce. It
looks as if you are going to be drawn into this European War with that scoundrel
Hitler. Can we offer to do some sub-contracting in that event?"

By giving up everything taken since 1937, Japan keeps everything taken before that, and gets to be on the "winning team" again. Keeping Korea, Man-
churia, Formosa and southern Sakilin, plus all her mandate territories in the
Pacific. Beats the He-l out of what going to war got her.

Not much of a game, I'll grant you. But the only way for Japan to "win".

Mr. Yamamoto, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to deploy Kido Butai to the Mediterranean and isolate Italian and German forces in northern Africa from their lines of supply. In this effort you will have extensive access to ports in Bermuda and east coastal America from which you may draw supply, refit, and engage in R & R.

The war that should have happened rather than the one that was.